Now there is a call for the residents of Hamilton to all contribute a few cents a year to the RNZSPCA, all this because the SPCA cannot deal with the stray cats.

First of all Only dog and stock control re the responsibilities of Council and unless there is some legislation which I am unaware of it has actually been ultra vires ( outside the scope ) for councils to become involved in animal welfare . Cats unless they are a health issue are not the responsibility of council .

Now I have heard that the SPCA has adopted a no kill policy.. very good humane wise but not so good given that some cats are not the type of animal you could re home who would want a wild cat ?

So the no kill policy effectively does two things..

1. It fills up the cattery, requires more staff requires more funds, keeps more friends family and associates employed ( this used to be done by volunteers) they spent an extra $100,000 in the past few years

2. It is a reason to plead poverty and ask for more funds

.. Isn’t keeping a cat in a cage at infinitum would be cruel and the animal is better off being put down humanely. Neil Wells who claims to be AWINZ has told the charities commission that he has funded studies on the stress suffered by animals kept in captivity.. Yes he is the same Neil wells who signed the deed where the $400,000 was slipped sideways.. do you feel like you are going in circles???

The Waikato SPCA trust and the Waikato RNZSPCA are two different entities.. One is a trust the other a society. The trust has the societies fund and appears to act with it as it likes it was going to be part and parcel of yet another recently formed trust the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation which was going to build on the land at wintec .

The development officer at WINTEC is none other than the husband of mayor and chair woman of the RNZSPCA Julie Hardaker . Now as a lawyer you would think that she would be wanting to look a bit closer at the $400,000 which has left a visible trail through the charities commission and Societies web site.

She wears both the hats which should be concerned about the drain of these resources. I have covered this story earlier in Secrecy breeds corruption

You need only look at the article Update on Waikato shows who is who on the Waikato SPCA to see who was on the trust at the time.. How convenient that this proposed vet school was going to benefit the vet on the board of the SPCA

It should also be noted by any one looking at the accounts of the Waikato RNZSPCA that the accounts several years ago represented a number of bank accounts, now only the working account is listed. But it does not hide the fact that there have been significant donations to the RNZSPCA in the form of bequests over the years.

The ral issue with bequests is that those who leave money to the SPCA or RNZSPCA are not specific as to who should receive the money and there is apparently constant battles with regards to the terminology used in the individual wills as to where the money should go .. It has the ability to go anywhere and much does not go for the protection of animals but into investment plans and side trusts.

There is also no mention in the Waitakere RNZSPCA accounts of the money which the government gives to the RNZSPCA for the control of animals . I believe that stays with the main branch in Auckland and does not get distributed to the smaller societies.. This is so that they can individually plead poverty and tug at the heart strings of the public.

Then there is section 171 of the animal welfare act where by the approved organisation , which the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA is , is able to keep the funds for prosecutions.. it would appear that the Waikato RNZSPCA dos not prosecute although it is an approved organisation by virtue of being a branch under the RNZSPCA section 190 animal welfare act.

Last but not least there are the smaller trusts which the money is siphoned off into in the case of the Waikato RNZSPCA I have identified the one above about which there is more information in Submission to the select committee where I wrote this

Mr Didovich also plays a key role in the RNZSPCA and Mr Wells is also a trustee of the Waikato SPCA trust which has taken over $400,000 charitable funds from the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA , then dropped the corporate trustee RNZSPCA off the deed and then formed an entity in its own right.. Evidence of this is available from public records Societies register and charities commission. I will happily provide more evidence on this if required.

30 Mar 2010 … The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation has purchased a block of buildings and land on Wintec’s Avalon Dr Campus in Hamilton. …http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/…/New-home-will-be-animal-haven

Animal Welfare Education Initiative A First for New Zealand. The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the country’s …labs.daylife.com/journalist/hmc_communications – Cached

those listed on th charites web site are linked by their name others do not appear on the charities register John Gilmour appears on the charities commission but not on the minutes.

the news item indicates that the new chair .. who is standing for Mayor is the wife of Steven Perdia who is
Director, Planning and Enterprise at WINTEC, member of the Waikato Aviation Cluster Advisory Board and the Regional Governance Group.

any one else getting dizzy?isnt that the place where the new building is going to go and doesn the article int he paper mention that there will be a vet school there .. what a coincidence that one of the committee has such a great connection with the vet industry.

As a by the way

back to Mr Elder trustee of the waikato animal welfare foundation he directs the Wel group of companies with John Lewis SPENCER

as I have already shown many have previous names but look at this does this not make for confusion? the company number is what actually dictates the entity the names can change and they have .

WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED

now company number 507164 previously known as WEL NETWORKS LIMITED (12 Apr 2001) has been the name of two other companies

The first part is a request for investigation by the minister and the OAG the latter part a OIA for MAF they are here in conjunction as both parts are relevant to all parties. I have hyperlinked documentation which I have received from MAF for your reference

I am seriously concerned with the lack of accountability in the process of delegation of law enforcement and believe this entire process needs to be reviewed for legal accountability both by the minister and the office of the auditor general .

I do not believe that any private company in New Zealand would contract out its services in this manner as there is apparently little accountability and transparency.

We are not talking about contracting just anything we are contracting out animal welfare services which enables law enforcement under the act which in turn will provide revenue for the enforcers through prosecution of the public .( See section 171 of the act )

Therefore the more they prosecute the more revue they will derive from the legislation and so the SPCA will not be about animal welfare at all but will become an enforcement unit like the police and councils except that this body is private and is not subject to matter such as the official information act.

What makes it of more concern is that most of the offences require no intention ( mens rae) so the opinion of the enforcer is what drives the prosecution of an animal owner whose only sin has been to have been remiss in the opinion of the enforcer.

With costs for lawyers on an hourly basis being round the $300-500 mark few will be able to defend themselves and paying the fine and possibly surrendering their loved animal becomes the most economic measure. An example of this is a pensioner in the UK who was prosecuted when they probably needed help .

The RNZSPCA and the SPCA hold on to their bequests and investment funds and have been known to fight over who has the right to claim the money. This makes it clear it is NOT one organisation . They have been given Money and Donations to Help animals .

It is a misconception that The RNZSPCA is One organisation each is a society or trust and exists as an individual legal person.

I have set out my concerns below and the matters relating to the official information act request is for Mr Sherwin. The reason I take so much interest in this is because I once asked a totally innocent question with regards to the existence of an approved organisation (AWINZ) and because it did not exist and needed to cover up the writer and advisor for the animal welfare act sued me. This has cost me not only $100,000 it has potential of costing me a further $100,000 and has destroyed my family .This has now gone on for over 4 years . I do not believe that anyone else should suffer what I have and therefore request that MAF and the government ensure that this process of delegating law enforcement to a private organisation is fully transparent and legally defendable.

Point 1 you have supplied me with overview of mafs animal welfare activities Please advise why the select committee was not given the total number of animal welfare officers who have powers under the animal welfare act.

Point 2

Please provide details of whether or not the select committee was advised of the contact for provision of animal welfare services to any third parties.

Point 4. I had requested the names of all Inspectors appointed by the RNZSPCA its member societies and branches . I had requested that each appointee be shown with the branch or member society who had requested that appointment. That information was refused.

I subsequently asked for papers which require the withholding of this information and was advised that it is decided on a case by case basis.

please provide all documentation which led to the decision to withhold this information I this case.

In the event that the above cannot be supplied I request that In the interest of transparency and as a right of the public to be fairly informed as to which private individuals being non government employees can enforce the law under this act , I request that you please provide a list of all inspectors recommended for appointment by any RNZSPCA society or SPCA trust or society and any other inspector not employed by Government. . I request that this documents Identifies who the inspector is and which entity recommended their appointment and the date of appointment and the district to which they are affiliated.

Point 5

Please provide a copy of the certificate of appointment which the inspectors carry so that we know what it looks like and that a certificate produced is genuine.

You state that MAF anticipates that in the vast majority of cases a description of the background to the complaint would be sufficient to identify the individual involved, without difficulty.. please provide the research and discussion papers which led to this statement being made.

Point 6

You say that the information requested does not exist yet I have made you aware that AWINZ did not exist as a legal person and is in my opinion based on the evidence I have , a sham trust . If you look at the trust deed which was supplied to you in draft form in 1999 and an unverified copy of which was supplied in 2006 you will note that the deed states that the trustees are appointed for 3 years only.

This means that the deed signed on 1.3.2000 expired on 1 March 2003. I have evidence from Mr Coutts trustee and the other two trustees that they only met in 1998 or 1999 . Therefore by the time the MOU with MAF was signed in December 2003 no valid trust existed and Mr Wells, the writer and advisor of the act which he was now using to promote his own business venture , could not have signed as trustee of a nonexistent trust.

Despite this MAF have defended their actions and the auditor general simply stated they wouldn’t do anything because I was being sued for defamation . I wish to point out that through an over sight in law no one has ever proved that what I have said was defamatory, in fact all my statements have been proved to have been true. Truth is never defamatory.

You also state in an audit report that the current trustees of AWINZ ( who do not have a MOU with you ) have offered to relinquish their approved status. One has to ask how they can relinquish something they never had?

It therefore means that inspectors appointed on the recommendation of a nonexistent AWINZ did not have any one to be accountable to and there is no one to make a complaint to with regards these inspectors.

Please advise if MAF has at any time considered this aspect or given any consideration to

The lack of trust deed

The lack of proof of existence of a trust

The need to receive and accept only verified information

Seeking verification of existence of a trust .. even after I brought it to your attention

The validity of any action of inspectors recommended for appointment and responsible to AWINZ

Please provide all documents which relate to this aspect

Point 7

There is much confusion in referring to the RNZSPCA .

the act refers only to the ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED section 189

Section 190 of the act refers to “Any incorporated society that is a branch or member of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated may, through that royal society (in its capacity as an approved organisation) “

I have not yet found any legal document which defines the branches or members or process by which branches and members are approved. Nor have I seen any evidence other than inference that an organisation is a member or a branch other than by being referred to a web site.

Through this statement in the act it is apparent that the “ royal society “ is ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED which is one society with the registration number 218546 other SPCA’s have gone through name changes some having gone to a branch then back to being a SPCA. There are branches and members which pre exist the “ royal society “

The memorandum of understanding Defines the RNZSPCA as THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED its branches and member societies

The national council is defined as “ the body of elected members from the branches or member societies who are constitutionally responsible for he workings of the RNZSPCA

The national executive is the administrative body of the of the RNZSPCA national council

The performance and Technical standards defines SPCA as THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED an approved organisation for the purposes of the act.

The national council is defined as a body of elected persons who are constitutionally responsible for the working of the SPCA

The national executive is the administrative body appointed by the national executive

The Agreement sale and purchase of animal welfare services is between THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED trading as the royal new Zealand SPCA and its permitted successors and assigns.

However nothing in the contract indicates what its “its permitted successors and assigns” are and these are not defined.

This indicates that there is much confusion as to who is what and in the absence of further proof the only organisation empowered to carry out work under the contract is between THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED identified with unique number 218546

Please supply all correspondence and documentation which show who the member societies are and who its branches are and all documentation identifying the “its permitted successors and assigns”

Please provide details as to what formal structure the” national council” is .. is it a trust is it a group of people is it a society? Is it identifiable as a legal person or is the national council the name of an informal committee? What is it a committee of ie which legal person/ persons ? Please provide all documents which you hold which identifies who or what the national council is.

Please provide documentation which MAF relied on in treating the national council as a legal or natural person capable of entering into an agreement such as an MOU.

Please provide all documents discussion papers which considered the legal enforceability of an MOU

When it is signed with a natural person or legal person

When it is signed on behalf of a trading name or undefined group of persons.

Point 8

It would appear that your MOU is inconsistent with the act

I am referring to the fact that the act specifies that only the ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED (with unique number 218546 ) can recommend persons for appointment and that member societies and branches can recommend through it. Yet the MOU defines RNZSPCA as being The ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED its branches and member societies .

There appears to be no legal ability for your MOU to be with branches and member societies as the obligations under the act are with the RNZSPCA Inc and the individual societies and members come below it.

This structure has opened the back door for previously declined applicants for approved status such as the international league of horses to simply change its name and become “ approved “ by affiliating with the SPCA , since the role involves law enforcement this has to be of serious concern .

Please provide all documentation

which considered the application of the international league of horses in it application for approved status.

Which identifies the inspectors which now makes this organisation an approve organisation in the name of SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED previously known as INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HORSES (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED previously known as HORSE PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED unique number 212301

Al correspondence from the RNZSPCA Inc showing that this organisation is now a member society or branch

Please provide any contracts and agreements which that society has with other societies , trusts ,companies or legal persons for the provision of these services.

Please provide copies of all legal opinions and reports which MAF has sought to clarify the dealings with a number of incorporated societies who have provided no real proof of belonging to one umbrella organisation other than by inference.

You state in your letter (reply from Maf 16 July) that the RNZSPCA as a whole is an approved Organisation under section 189 of the act .

I believe that Maf since day one has never grasped the concept of legal persons and the importance of correctly identifying who you deal with Your statement conflicts with the act which you administer at section 189 (1) states

(1) The organisation known as the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated is an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act.

That organisation is Number 218546 Name THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED Incorporated 11-SEP-1933

There are many other societies named as branches and others names SPCA which exist . Please look up the societies web page and search in the key word search using the words cruelty and animals you will find that some 80 societies come up both current and historic .

You will notice also that many of these societies are only run by Robyn Kippenberger , What are the implications of branches being run and administered only by one person. Each of these “ branches’ is a legal person a society in their own right. They have assets and should have 15 people .

What records does Maf hold on these societies which are currently only being run by one person , what enquiries has MAF made with the register of societies to ensure that this is a legally viable option please provide all documents which have considered the validity of such organisations which could effectively be employing inspectors yet exist only as a paper society.

For the record I wish you to consider that these societies frequently own land which has been bequeathed to them , I have had members of such defunct organisations contact me advising me that they have been removed from office as Mr. Wells so accurately states in his poster there is money in animals Please advise what anti corruption measures the Ministry has considered by giving such wide scope of power to a group of private individuals who through their contract to the crown have unlimited ability to raise funds .

Please further advise what controls and audit systems MAF has considered for the income generated though prosecutions and the ability for such money to be moved sideways into trusts and be whittled away through various payment streams to the high paid executives.

There are now trusts called SPCA which have sprung into existence and it is no longer clear as to which is a member society or a branch or not affiliated other than by inference that the name provides membership.

There is also nothing in the public arena which shows any affiliation of the various organisations .

We are talking about the delegation of law enforcement here and we appear to have no chain of authority and we have apparently left it wide open for any organisation to call itself SPCA and come under the umbrella of what is New Zealand’s only private law enforcement authority.

MAF was similarly negligent when it approved AWINZ as an approved organisation when you were not even in possession of a trust deed. I questioned the existence of that organisation and was sued because MAF had been incapable of verifying the organisations existence before sending it to the minister for the pproval.

Transitional provisions

There appears to be nothing in the act which stipulates the duration of the transitional provisions , as MAF appear to be continuing to use these transitional provisions for the delegation of animal welfare enforcement they must be aware of the working so f the act. It would appear from your answer and action that the transitional measures are permanent unless MAF has an application from the RNZSPCA INC to become an approved organisation.

What consideration has Maf given to treating each individual society as an approved organisation rather than allowing the RNZSPCA inc to continue to appoint which ever organisation they wish as a branch or member . please provide all discussion papers .

Please provide any documents you have which shows how the RNZSPCA can appoint members or take on new branches.

If there have been any other applications for organisations including member societies or branches of the SPCA to become approved organisations please provide these.

Point 10

There is general confusion and blurring of organisations because of the conflict of using RNZSPCA and SPCA and now royal SPCA , I respectfully request that MAF seeks legal advice from a suitably qualified lawyer on this issue as the real names and trading names appear to become mixed and this does not allow for proper identification of the parties. This would be akin to identity fraud if it is done intentionally .( I am not saying that this is the case ) But the public have the right to know which entity they are dealing with and at present that is not possible.

There is much missing in the transparency of the RNZSPCA inc and its branches and member societies this is an issue which is of public significance for accountability reasons and MAF should ensure that we know at all times who in the private sector is entitled to enforce the law. Lack of transparency breeds corruption

Point 11.

The issue which I am trying to clarify is that the delegated authority to individuals is done as follows

RNZSPCA inc is an approved organisation

There are member society and branches by inference but there is no documented proof- perhaps a flow chart may exist which you can supply to clarify this

These member societies branches .. called local SPCAs are all separate legal persons and have separate society and trust registration numbers -each can select candidates for training and then make recommendations to the national office which presumably again by inference is the approved organisation

The approved organisation recommends the person to Maf

Maf approves /declines

If approved the inspector is warranted and works for the member society or branch

By virtue of section 190 (2) that organisation then becomes an approved organisation and can retain any fines from its prosecutions by virtue of section 171

It is therefore very lucrative for a society to have an inspector as the inspector through prosecutions can generate revenue especially now that the penalties have been increased.

It is therefore essential that the all steps in the delegation process and all legal names are transparent and accurate.

It is my concern that MAF have not properly considered the implications of the contracts between parties and the ability to expand the branches and member societies without consultation with Government.

The MOU dated 16 march 2006 claiming to be between the minister and THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED and branches and member societies is signed only by Barry O’Neill through delegated authority and Peter Mason national President.

I therefore request information pursuant to the official information act so as to complete the chain of evidence of delegation and accountability with respect to this process As mentioned above

I also request any documents which may discuss a limit to the growth of the number of member societies and branches and the limit on numbers of inspectors who may be appointed.

Point 11 please provide All discussion documents, reports and correspondence which considered the implications of delegating law enforcement authority through an unenforceable document.

Pont 20 & 22 Please advise how many RNZSPCA inspector applicants have been interviewed by MAF

Point 53 Please advise whether MAF considered the fact that the RNZSPCA is a private society and therefore not subject to the official information act when it directed that an inspector should advise a district if they are working outside their jurisdiction. What consideration did MAF give to the availability of information to the public who may wish to question the jurisdiction of an inspector. .. Please provide all documents which discussed this aspect before having it included in the MOU

Point 66 please provide copies of all newsletters

Further

Please provide all correspondence to MAF with regards to the new facility being built at WINTEC in Hamilton being built by a group of persons calling themselves the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation ( but otherwise unidentifiable as this organisation does not exist beyond perhaps a well concealed private trust deed ) the trustee named Jan Thomson is on the executive of the Waikato RNZSPCA and she is talking about leasing he building back to the Waikato SPCA which is exactly the same organisation which Jan Thomson is an executive of. Some of the money being used is $4000,000 which came from the Waikato RNZSPCA and has been used to set up the Waikato SPCA trust. .. It is such creativity and lack of transparency which opens the door to corruption and fraud. This is preventable and therefore MAF should take all steps to ensure that those who they allow to enforce the law are transparent.

I believe that Unitec secured the training for inspectors fate it had been included as a requirement in the act. The training was provided by Mr Wells the author of the bill who obtained employment at Unitec to facilitate the new legislation. Unitec won the contract please provide the names of all those who tendered for the supply of this service .

who is the current training provider contracted to MAF and please advise who the providers were since the act commenced. Pease supply copies of all these contracts.

I request all documents which relate to any consideration given to changing the current service provider or to any consideration to implement a new provider at Wintec to train the new influx of animal welfare inspectors.

Lastly

There have been a number of long term RNZSPCA & SPCA officers inspectors and committees from various legal entities which are branches or member societies that have been laid off . It would appear that there are changes afoot in the running of the SPCA which has brought about the need to remove the old to make room for the new. Has Maf investigated these changes and have they been notified regarding any of these changes. Please provide any or all correspondence which relates to the takeover of administration of branches, dismissals of inspectors and officer in the past 2 years.

Look it up on the societies web site and it is not there , neither is it on the companies register . Simple conclusion it is a bullshit name made to look impressive by the people who are hiding behind it.

We know that if something does not exist as a person in the natural or legal form then it cannot hold assets or land.

So how can a string of words have an intention ? Buy land develop it? Transparency is what is encouraged and when we have secrecy there is always a reason and in my experience it is not for any good reason.

Thre are lots of news items about this mysterious nonexistent body.perhaps the people involved should come clean and show who or what the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation is other than an impressive sounding group of words strung together .

Why is wintec a public body dealing with a non existent group how can it even contract or have an agreemnt with somtheing which has no legal standing?

08/04/2010

I have recently become aware of the word Kaisen , it means to bring about change gradually, a bit like boiling a frog, you start heating the water slowly and he doesn’t realise he is done for until it is too late.

And so it is with the animal welfare legislation. To illustrate this I will focus on one person Mr Neil Wells . A short chronology according to his own CV .

It shows Mr Wells as being a key player in the RNZSPCA joining in 1971 , becoming president of the Royal Federation of NZRNZSPCA in 1976 .

It is believed by some that he became a barrister in animal welfare law because the RNZSPCA paid for his degree, I have not been able to confirm this either way.

In 1984 he was a founding member of a “National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee” and “Animal Welfare Advisory Committee” the status of these bodies is unknown to me but it would appear that they lobbied for an animal Welfare advisory Committee to be set up by Government . This occurred in 1989 when Colin Moyle acceded to the submission of lobby groups.

I believe Mr Wells to have been part of the animal advisory committee due to the acknowledgment by Mr Falloon in a discussion paper “A review of the animal protection act 1960” as being a contributor.

Neil Wells had already set up a pilot program in Waitakere with his mate Bob Harvey ( Bob and Neil worked in advertising and had been responsible for getting the Kirk labour government into power ) .

Tom Didovich was the manager of the Waitakere council dog pound which during the early association with Wells changed its name to Waitakere Animal Welfare .

In 1996 Wells shares his vision for a territorial animal welfare service with Didovich , there is no doubt in my mind that this is a business plan for Wells own venture one which needed legislation to facilitate it.

As luck would have it the Lobby groups ( many of which include Mr Wells in some capacity ) push for a new animal welfare Act and Neil Wells volunteers to write it. This will become the No 1 Bill or the other wise known as the Hodgson bill .

Concurrently Wells sets up a training program to train dog and stock control officers, his fees to train the dog and stock control officers are $2500 + GST and there are fees of $1250 + GST p.a. per council .

He takes the training program to Unitec and works with them and NZQA to facilitate a course in anticipation of his plan going nation wide. He was actively approaching councils for interest at this time.

I firmly believe that due to this he had a vested interest in the legislation he was writing and consulting on

It was going to provide him with an income stream for his territorial animal welfare service and the lecturing at Unitec and through the prosecution of animal welfare offences.

A significant change in the new act is that offences now became strict liability offences, that is no intent needs to be shown , the offence is complete if you are the owner of an animal found to be suffering.

But most significant part is section 171 of the animal welfare act is that the fines could be paid to the organisation brining the prosecution.

Every thing you would ever need for your own business all in the legislation which you have helped write.

The legislation was passed when a second bill was considered with the no 1 bill

But when a second was bill was introduced and the primary production committee took 39 hours and 22 minutes to consider both the bills after hearing 15 hours and 22 minutes of submissions.

Fortunately they had assistance and I quote form the animal welfare legislation booklet which Mr. Wells himself wrote – the committee recorded “ we Received advice from the ministry of Agriculture and forestry ( MAF ) we also employed Neil Wells as an Independent specialist adviser who assisted our consideration. Neil Wells , a barrister who specialises in animal welfare legislation , had earlier been involved in the draft Hodgson bill”

Of note again was that Mr Wells was a legal adviser to MAF during this time and it appears to me that he had more than one finger in the pie . I cannot find anything anywhere where he declared his conflict of interest to the Primary production committee although I did find a reference that Mr. Wells told MAF that he had verbally told some one of the conflict, I have been unable to prove or disprove this.

And so the act became law an act which gave inspectors wide sweeping powers, , the ability to become a private prosecution authority with little or no accountability and to keep all funds arising out of their action.

The select committee is currently looking at increasing the penalties for offences under the animal welfare Act .

In an interesting twist Tom Didovich who worked with Mr Wells so closely with in setting up the integration of dog and stock control with SPCA duties, is now well placed in the RNZSPCA ready to turn the RNZSPCA into a prosecution authority instead of the helpful and service it once was.

Didovich is also a “ trustee” of a trust named the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand which bears the same name as an approved organisation which gained “ approved status from the labour cabinet after the president of the labour party at that time, Bob Harvey was consulted. The fact that there was no evidence of the of an organisation by the name of the animal welfare institute existing was apparently not important … Untill I asked and then I was sued.

01/04/2010

This week I was told by Rodney Hides office that he could not meet with me due to a conflict of interest due to a public discussion paper which is going to be released next February… all I knew was that it has not yet been written .

I have been questioning why a local government contracts animal welfare services to a trading name for an undisclosed trust and there are no documents which contract council to a legal person . What complicates this is that the person representing the trust , is also the council manager and effectively contacts public services to himself .

Rodney Hide is the minister of local Government and he is my Local MP and it looks as though he is planning his next move after he has the super city set up .The council manager who in my opinion has made false statements to the crown and has worked with a pretend trust then set another trust up to give it some substance is also so the man who wrote the legislation which now appears to me to be being used to privatize dog and stock control, legislation which has wide sweeping powers and little accountability for the enforcers and will be a licence to print money.

We are not supposed to know what is next on the menu but it appears that some already know and are actively planning and this is one year before the public discussion paper is going to come out . so why are some already in the know and How democratic is al of this?

From information I have received from various sources I am of the belief that Dog and stock control will be taken from councils and the SPCA will take over this role. The SPCA and the RNZSPCA will take on extra inspectors , actually I believe that the RNZSPCA will be wound up and new SPCA’s with new constitutions take over.

Royal New Zealand SPCA’s National Chief Executive, Robyn Kippenbergerand Rodney Hide are well connected as Robyn was none other than Robyn Mc Donald who was in parliament with Rodney when she was a NZ First list MP.

In the mean time more branches are popping up the International league of horses , which tried to become an approved organisation and failed has now become a branch of the SPCA

Many RNZSPCA Inspectors volunteer their time and get little support while the Business of the SPCA grows using the legislation written by a former director and gives them much power and little accountability or transparency.

Few see the significance of the blurring of boundaries with the SPCA and the RNZSPCA much confusion is occurring here and no one seems to be asking questions.

What is significant is the select committee is currently looking at increasing the penalties for animal welfare offences. My submission was rejected and I believe this to be so that the conflicts of interests and the fact that these penalties are payable to the enforcement authorities can remain out of public view.

While this is going on preparations have already commenced for the training of the extra officers and I am picking that this is going to be done through the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation, which just like AWINZ is just a name and not a legal person .

Hands up who would like to write the legislation for their own business venture, then with as little accountability as possible enforce offences which are strict liability and collect the fines yourself all set in motion without consultation to the public.

Looks to me like an open door to corruption. So why Won’t Rodney speak to me ? does he support corruption? or does he not grasp that councils should not allow managers to contract to themselves and avail themselves of public money by using council staff for their private purposes or fundraise for services provided by council staff and put money in a private bank account held in a trading name for undisclosed persons.

Perhaps its time Rodney looked up the definition of corruption as provided by the United Nations convention against corruption and if New Zealand is at all serious about ratifying the convention then turning a blind eye takes us further from that objective.

27/03/2010

There must have been a sense of Déjà Vu at the Waikato RNZSPCA meeting the occasions we refer to are to are the times in the 1970’s when bus loads of supporters turned up to ensure that one party would be victorious – one such event is described in the

The connection being that Neil Wells was a former director of the RNZSPCA he wrote the animal welfare bill and acted as an independent advisor to the select committee to see the bill become law. he then set up his own SPCA type organisation in Waitakere city where Tom Didovich was manager animal welfare of the council- they called their service animal care and control .

Tom was closely associated with one of the ladies in Hamilton and the concept of animal care and control was also set up in the Hamilton Council . Neil Wells became a trustee of the trust which was gifted $400,000 from the RNZSPCA Waikato . A trust which he was a trustee of three years alter when the corporate trustee the RNZSPCA was removed from the deed see https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/more-submissions/

Great to see Close up having a look at the Waikato RNZSPCA. what we find unusual is that $400,000 was given from the RNZSPCA to a trust which then became the Waikato SPCA and that the incorporated society also used the name Waikato SPCA on its annual returns ( societies.govt.nz )- it appears tobe blurring of boundaries.. confusionary tactics like AWINZ and Waitakere city .

Keep your eye on the money some how $400,000 of the RNZSPCA’s money has been taken and is being used by the SPCA. I’s time some one clarified who and what the RNZSPCA is and what associations the SPCAs have and why some drop the RNZ bit.

11/03/2010

Animal Welfare Act. A private prosecution service with a licence to print money. Increase accountability of approved organisation before increasing penalties to the public

Submitted By Grace Haden Licenced Private Investigator

Four years ago I asked questions about an approved organisation Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)as a result I have been hauled through the court it has potential of costing over $250,000 and it has destroyed my family. In the words of transparency international.. corruption ruins lives fight back .. I have but corruption in animal welfare funded by the public purse and private prosecutions has been a task too big for me.

Background

In 1999 Mr Neil Edward Wells Barrister who wrote the first bill for animal welfare Act 1999 and had seen its passage into law through his employment as independent advisor to the select committee , applied to the minister of Agriculture for the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) to become an approved organisation by virtue of section 121 Animal welfare act 1999.

Mr Wells applied on behalf of AWINZ ( the trading name for a group of people ) but there was never any evidence that these people were aware of their responsibilities, the legislative implications ,that they consented to this application for approved status or that they even existed as an “ organisation “

When I questioned the existence of AWINZ ( following the euthanasia of a cat named Chloe and an inspector voicing her concerns ) I was promptly sued to keep me quite, Funds were raised from the public purse in the guise of a charity and used to pursue me through the court ( this is proved by invoices I have and the financial statements on the charities web site for a trust which did not exist when litigation commenced )

I am a former Police Sergeant and am now a Private Investigator and member of the Certified Fraud examiners association.

In obtaining evidence for my defence I have obtained documentation which proves the following documents are attached as they appear below.

Mr Wells a former RNZSPCA director had a business concept to utilise territorial dog and stock control officers as SPCA type inspectors ( animal welfare inspectors ) he set up a pilot programme which he initiated in Waitakere city (letter dated 26 August 1994)

In 1996 he wrote to the then manager Waitakere City Animal Welfare division Tom Didovich and expressed intent to take the concept nation wide 1/1/1996

Mr Wells volunteered to write the animal welfare bill and in so doing wrote in sections to facilitate his business venture and to that end there was a clause pertaining to territorial bodies No 1 bill

Whilst Mr Wells was employed as an independent advisor to the select committee he continued to communicate with Tom Didovich and passed on information which was not in the public realm, to over come the hurdles which would prevent territorial bodies form having an animal welfare role 17 September 1998.

5. The intention of the act was to exclude territorial bodies so Mr Wells came up with a concept of a trust. A good independent summary of what AWINZ and its back ground is in this letter by MAF 24/12/1999 “To overcome legal and policy issues that preclude local authorities having an animal Welfare role , Mr Wells has promoted the formation of a charitable trust called AWINZ, the trust deed states that its “principal purpose is to promote animal welfare”

In August 1999 Mr Wells advises the director general MAF of his intention to apply for approved status for the trust which he states has been formed by way of trust deed 22.8.199

On 22 November 1999 Mr Wells makes an application for AWINZ to become an approved organisation again stating that A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand(AWINZ). It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957”

The significance of registration under the charitable trust act is that it makes the trust which other wise no more than a group of people with a common purpose using a trading name , into a body corporate( legal person ) which has perpetual existence , can sue and be sued .

It should be noted that it takes just a few days to register a trust under the charitable trust act if the application complies with the act.

In the period between August and November the trust would have been incorporated if the statement in the August notice of intent was true.

Mr Wells on this application makes out that AWINZ is a legal person in its own right (not even a trust deed exists at this time )

In 2006 neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a copy of the trust deed for AWINZ and there as no record of it being incorporated under any act.

With others I formed a trust called the animal welfare institute of new Zealand and we succeeded in registering it under the charitable trust act there by proving that no other legal person by that name existed.

When Mr Wells became aware of our existence a deed was produced it was dated 1/3/2000 which proves that the statements in August and November to the minister were untrue. ( this was the first time MAF had had a copy of a deed )

We were threatened with legal action and were told to give up the name and our web site which expressed our concerns about the unidentifiable law enforcement agency which had wide sweeping powers.

We asked if we could meet trust to trust to resolve the issue but Mr Wells and two other persons who were not the same group as those named on the deed ,sued me in an attempt to silence me and make us give up the name so that they could commence a cover up .

These three people later combined with Mr Didovich the former manager animal welfare Waitakere City ( who had witnessed and collected the signatures of the trustees for he alleged 2000 deed ) to sign a trust deed and form a charity in 2007.

Mr Didovich also plays a key role in the RNZSPCA and Mr Wells is also a trustee of the Waikato SPCA trust which has taken over $400,000 charitable funds from the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA , then dropped the corporate trustee RNZSPCA off the deed and then formed an entity in its own right.. Evidence of this is available form public records Societies register and charities commission. I will happily provide more evidence on this if required.

I have been held in the courts for nearly four years now the court has been misled and manipulated and I was denied a defence, no evidence has ever been presented by Mr Wells who has used his victory in court to portray me as a person who is obsessed in pursuit of him . My pursuit has been for justice and the fact that I questioned what I saw as a corrupt practice and I have been persecuted for it.

I have evidence which shows that

Mr Wells is manager animal welfare Waitakere city Council

As manager Animal welfare he is both parties in an MOU with AWINZ .

The dog control officers “volunteer” their services to AWINZ while on full council pay. ( 5 Jan 2000 ) Most are not aware of the significance of their double role.

AWINZ operates from council premises but council deny this email 8 May 2000 wells claims he leases the premises for $1 per year but the council letter 11 march 2009 par 13.AWINZ claims they do not operate from the premises.

AWINZ uses the same logo as displayed on the council building for public fundraising sent out with dog registration except that it has the words institute of New Zealand written below the animal welfare sign.

AWINZ undertakes animal welfare prosecutions , I have documents for two such matters the latest one came to my notice in the past few weeks

Prosecution 1. As relayed to me by the person charged

This lady inherited her mothers elderly dog it had arthritis. Her mother had passed away tragically one month before Waitakere dog control officers picked it up from her back yard.

Without being contacted the dog was Euthanized because it was deemed to be suffering due to arthritis

She phoned dog control in an attempt to recover the dogs body so that she could have it cremated and interred with her mother.

The matter was reported to AWINZ Mr Wells who approved the matter for prosecution.

Mr Wells passed it on to AWINZ barrister Mr Wells

Mr Wells Barrister sought diversion for a donation to a trust which neither existed nor was charitable and money was paid into a bank account in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand, which was under the sole control of Mr Wells.

Prosecution 2 As relayed to me by the person charged

This young man had a dog with Mange. He went to the vet and got medication. The dog had a relapse and he went back to the vet who would not give more medication due to the boy’s lack of funds.

When he arrived back home the dog jumped out of the car and sought refuge under a nearby house. When the boy could not get the dog out Waitakere dog control were called .

The matter was reported to the manager Animal welfare Waitakere city Mr Wells

Mr Wells council officer passed it To Mr Wells CEO of the now newly covered up AWINZ trust ( But not being the same persons who were supposedly the approved organisation )

Mr Wells of AWINZ passes it to their barrister Mr Wells who prosecuted the matter before the court and had $398 reparation ordered.

Issues relating to both these prosecutions

I have good reason to believe that these are not the only prosecutions however these are two which I can conclusively prove , it should be noted that in both cases the time of the offending is over allegedly a two month period and prosecutions were commenced 6 months after the last date of the alleged offence.

The offences under the animal welfare act are strict liability , so even if the persons had a good defence it is hard to produce evidence after 8 months after the first date I, it is ironic that in two prosecutions so far apart the pattern is so similar.

There is no knowing how many prosecutions actually occur and how many “ diversions” for donation are given , nor is there any ability to see where the money goes.

Strict liability

Animal welfare legislation is already harsher than anything pertaining to abuse of children. I use the following example.

A mother who happens to be a GP went skiing her son complained of a swore leg after a fall. Because he could weigh bear on the leg he could ski on it. The following week it was discovered that the leg was in fact fractured.

Had this been a dog she would have been banned from owning another animal and she would not have had any defence open to her. The offence being complete when she failed to recognise that the leg was broken.

Animals should not have greater protection than children and there should be an “intent “ ingredient brought back in the legislation .

Most pet owners who see their animal hobble in won’t dash off to the vet, just as parents whose child complains of an ache won’t necessarily dash off to a doctor.

The injury is often assessed over time and frequently by the next day the animal is fine.

The risk for pet owners is that if an over zealous animal welfare inspector seeking to line the pockets of their “ charity “ intervenes the owner is charged on the sole basis that the inspector thinks the animal is suffering.

There is also the matter of costs of vet bills. The charity which we had set up, which Mr Wells effectively destroyed through litigation, was set up with intent of helping owners of injured animals with financial assistance which could be repaid later.

People bond with their animals and just as you would not put your child down if their leg needed amputation or pinning it is often a decision which cash strapped owners face.

There was a time when the RNZSPCA used to help with such matters now with the “ charities” being run as businesses it appears to be about collecting money and not about providing service .

Mr Wells has probably the best set up of all unlike SPCA’s he has no overheads , he uses the councils premises, staff ,vehicles ,resources and even uses council phones and email addresses and logos. He Sends out donation form with dog registration and possibly also prosecutes in council time. The only administrative task left over is counting money and depositing it in the bank account he in 2006 had sole control of .

Several RNZSPCA volunteer inspectors have confided in me that they are concerned with the wealth that is being acquired within the RNZSPCA and the corporate wages being paid at the top.

I believe that animal welfare has become not a matter of service but a money making venture and I support this with a poster which Mr Wells had on file in Waitakere city .There is profit in animals .

I am a former Police prosecutor and am aware of the economics of prosecutions. A lawyer charges $350 per hour so any penalty or diversion of less than three hours lawyers wages is more economical to pay than to defend . In our cash strapped society it is money which dictates the plea.

Middle income New Zealand have no right to justice to defend a simple animal welfare matter would cost several thousand dollars.

Added to this is the fact that there is no defence is possible any way because it is the opinion of the welfare officer if the animal was suffering.

Suggested action for the animal welfare amendment bill

More transparency and accountability of approved organisations -those who do the enforcing should be squeaky clean.

i. This is the only legislation which is enforced by private citizens.

ii. There needs to be independent assessment of every animal welfare charge before it is sent to the court no one should be able to wear all the hats as in the case of Mr Wells.

iii. Authority to prosecute should be obtained through MAF .

iv. Auditing and spot checks by independent assessors to evaluate those prosecutions are not being taken unjustly. Heavy penalties for abuse of this process.

v. Those who enforce need to be held accountable to truth honesty and transparency.

Giving Private trusts the ability to enforce the law is like giving an open cheque book especially when they cannot be held accountable as in the case of AWINZ where the “approved organisation” effectively does not exist .

Penalties for making false claims as to approve status.

i. The penalty for making a false statement for the purpose of establishing an approved organisation should be a prison term .

ii. No organisation should be approved unless a statutory declaration has been filed,( Which would bring its own legal protection ).And some one has checked to see if it exists beyond paper.

Animal welfare is the only law enforcement sector where civilians , non government employees are entrusted with wide powers

It is effectively a private prosecution and law enforcement service but there is no register of animal welfare inspectors and who they are responsible to ,

Private investigators and security Guards do not have powers more than an any civilian , in fact Private investigators have less rights than the average person ( we cant take photos or record voice recordings ) yet we have

to advertise our intention to be Licenced each year,

we have to be re apply and pay a licence fee

we have to be approved by the registrar

we have to have a security clearance

we are subject to a hearing if some one objects to our renewal

we appear on a publicly available database so our licence can be verified at any time.

But animal welfare inspectors who have wide powers are not subjected to these controls and have no real process of individual accountability other than to the approved organisation which recommended them and the average person would no know where to begin to look.

There is no independent accountability of animal welfare officers , no process for disciplinary hearings and it would appear that as law enforcers and being civilians they have all power and very little accountability.

As has been shown in the case of AWINZ , there is no transparency or accountability to the enforcers and consideration should be given to a complete review of the way animal welfare legislation is enforced.

I have further concerns with respect to the confusion of the SPCA and he RNZSPCA , those in the RNZSPCA claim that the SPCA is different and the SPCA claim that they are not the RNZSPCA, so where do they get their legal powers from, only the RNZSPCA is an approved organisation . Every one of them is chasing the dollar if they really cared about animal they would provide treatment and assistance to those who love their pets but are financially embarrassed.

Because these organisations are private enforcement authorities, all with people at the top wanting corporate wages , it has become a nest feathering exercise for all but the volunteers , those who need the money do without , which in this day and age makes them a dying breed,

The current system is easily be abused and there is no accountability for the fines which can very easily disappear into personal accounts and to that end all animal welfare fines should be paid into a public purse so that those who care about animals act for their concern for the animal and not act out of pecuniary advantage.

I am happy to make personal submissions on this matter and assist you with information for any investigations you deem necessary.

I am a verification specialist and will be happy to assist in setting up a system which will make the enforcement of animal welfare more transparent accountable and just.

11/02/2010

I have been working with members of the RNZSPCA Waikato branch, where things are not at all well and an overwhelming similarity exists between its branch and what has happened in Waitakere city with AWINZ.

I have been supplied with a list of members who were voted on to the executive of the incorporated society and have compared that to those listed on the charities web site – you would expect the two to co relate but they don’t

So what is going on and why can’t elected members be on the executive and why do the executive have to sign a confidentiality agreement.. These are public funds which they hold

I have also noticed that the lawyer who processes the trust deeds Brian Adams shows a conflict of interest in that he is also a trustee.

I also hear that the officer listed as Keith Houston is the vet to which the society contracts

I am disappointed that the charities commission does not require certified copies of the minutes of the AGM to validate the names of the people put on the Charities web site.

It appears that if you make it up its fine there is no verification no cross referencing and this firmly closes the door on transparency and opens the door to corruption.

This ties in with the larger picture of AWINZand has surprising parallels

In 1999 Neil Wells who had previously expressed his intent of setting up a territorial animal welfare service and had written the first bill for what was to become animal welfare act 1999 to facilitate it , applied to the minister for AWINZ which did not exist at the time to become an approved organisation to facilitate council employees to be used as SPCA type officers.

In Hamilton at this time the RNZSPCA Waikato branch was told that the land would be rezoned and that they needed to sell so their property at Higgins road sold to Mr & Mrs Kettle and the Hamilton City council facilitated the RNZSPCA in the same building as their dog and stock control officers.

Back in Waitakere city the pilot programme which Neil Wells had set up in 1995 was still ongoing despite the fact that MAF had revoked the licences of the inspectors ( this information passed to me by a former inspector who I have no reason to doubt.)

Waitakere take on the dog control for North shore and call the contract Animal care and control.

Hamilton city also uses the name animal care and control , I have as yet not identified any other cities who use that name .. most call it dog control or the pound.

In 2000 Nearly $400,000 is GIFTED from the RNZSPCA Waikato to a newly set up trust of which Neil Wells is a trustee . ( he does not live in the Waikato he lives in Waitakere city )

By 2003 the deed is amended and the RNZSPCA which was a trustee is dropped off.

No wonder I was sued.. for speaking the truth this iceberg keeps getting bigger. I will not stop chipping away at it until I get it down to an ice cube.